James Davis Speaks - Paul Was An Eclectic Spiritual Dilettante
Jadoo941
sharing a little passage from The Road Less Traveled would generate such wide
ranging responses. Neither my heart nor mind were "broken" as you say by my
observations of Eckankar, nor by leaving it. Quite the contrary. After a period
of adjustment I feel more whole in both mind and heart. And even the adjustment
has been less concerned with heart and mind than with the fact that I had made
Eckankar activities the center of my daily life for decades, and so I'm in the
process of restructuring my outer life around other pursuits.
Incidentally, I learned a number of years ago how to experience light and sound
and spiritual bliss pretty much at will. It hasn't been hard for me, due to
several past lives that focused on a contemplative life. I continue to enjoy my
contemplative life, and my daily practice of reaching into higher or deeper or
broader states of consciousness.
I appreciate your elaborations on another metaphysical system, but I'm not
looking for one. It is surprisingly easy for people of a certain temperament
(whether ancient or modern people) to create a rich metaphysical system, and
also quite easy to find testimonials from people who swear by a given system's
efficacy. Another common approach is the eclectic path, picking and choosing
what suits one from a variety of sources. The third, which I have always
preferred, even while in Eckankar, is the integrative approach. This is not a
mere amalgamation of every tradition, but a synthesis that weeds out the
surface cultural-temporal differences and looks for the common underlying
themes, both traditional and emerging.
What initially attracted me to Eckankar was the belief that it was the most
complete and best integration of spiritual wisdom and practice on the planet.
It took some time, experience, and a lot of study and reading to realize that
it was not an integration at all, but actually a disjoint amalgamation of often
incompatible and contradictory parts extracted from several traditions. In
other words, Paul was an eclectic spiritual dilettante, not an integrator. A
number of people have pointed this out - it's not a new idea. The modern
philosopher Ken Wilber (Ford mentions in his book) has done a lot to develop an
integral view of spirituality. But he wants badly to win over academics, so he
gives short shrift to some key subjects, especially karma and reincarnation,
and he largely ignores the Western occult tradition. Still, as far as he goes,
he's done a lot of very insightful integration.
Paul had a knack for ferreting out jewels of wisdom in other traditions, which
he threw together recklessly and with little coherence or integrity. Then he
weakened it further by mixing in orthodox religious elements and his own
inventions. I think this is not apparent to most Eckists because they never do
an in-depth and systematic study of the entire body of Eckankar literature,
especially in context of Paul's sources. Such an approach is considered too
"mental" by most. Whenever I was doing research for certain Eckankar topics
with an aim of writing about them, the problem was very evident. Ford has done
a good job of pointing out some of the more blatant issues, but there are many
many more.
Michael Wallace
Thank you for posting this.... What he says is exactly right in that the
REAL issue has always been connection with the Sound and Light and the
contemplative practice. This is, after all, exactly what Paul taught.
He now regards Paul's teaching as a lesser creation ... And he has the right
to hold this opinion, but it does beg to rationalize common sense when he
states:
> "I think this is not apparent to most Eckists because they never do
> an in-depth and systematic study of the entire body of Eckankar
literature,
> especially in context of Paul's sources"
And James was the guy who wrote books supporting Eckankar, the principles,
and the teaching and who HAD done lots of research. I know the logic is that
because of this he left, which is fine if people wish to believe this. It
begs to reason the whole system of the adherent become the opposer. It is
like the witness who says "I saw this" one day, then "I don't see this" the
next.
Even so, I believe James truly believes what he does believe. My belief is
that he is taking a view through the Censor and wrapping his world view
according to the light that filters throuigh this.
I was talking with a friend recently who went through a whole process of
"belief" with Eckankar. He met Sri Harold on many occasions, and felt this
upswelling of a sense that he was an odd character, and distinctly
disinterested person who didn't see my friend clearly or understand his
position.
Then, some time later, he realised that this is EXACTLY the condition he had
as a child, and what he feared from his parents. What he had come to
understand was that what he thought was "Eckankar" had nothing to do with
himself, and that when he looked int he mirror he realised he just wasn't
the "good" person he imagined he was.
He came to understand that he was living in EXPECTATION, and that this
expectation was conforming to his needs. When he clicked to the fact that
all he had to do was recognize himself, then everything changed. He had no
more problem with the teaching... He also recognized that many people in the
teaching are lying to themselves with their actions, but he accepts this
more easily because now he knows he did this himself.
In other words, he recognized that which was the negatives in HIMSELF,
accepted these, and got past his fears of acceptance/rejection. In doing
this, he is starting to recognize the passive controllers in himself and int
he world around him, and now he feels that after some 25 years int he
teaching he is actually beginning to understand what Paul was about.
Nothing to do with the teaching, and everything to do with Accepting Self,
seeing self, and being self. What is the upshot of it all? My friend is
speaking up when he sees someone is lying to him, and politely pointing out
things if he feels it is right to do so. This is now his service to the ECK,
to be more honest every day.
It's a good goal, in my book.
Love
Michael
"Jadoo941" <jado...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040706204910...@mb-m19.aol.com...
arelurker
So if I'm understanding your friends story correctly, he realize that he
was projecting his childhood issues with his parents onto Harold and he
woke up from that unconscious pattern. Upon seeing this, what he thought
eckankar and Harold were had to do with his projections...that the
negatives were in himself being projected.
While I agree that is is very liberating to see how one projects
negative images onto Harold or eckankar in general, I think for people
like you to present this dynamic in the way that you do is incomplete
and ultimately dishonest. Let me explain.
With anything we project on people, usually there is a reason why we
project our issues on anther person. The two possibilities is we project
on a person our issues because they exhibit qualities that serves as
receptacles to our projections. Or we project on a person where they
don't have any of the qualities to receive our projections.
So in terms of your example, you assumed that just because your friend
realized he was projecting negative stuff on Harold that this means
there the qualities Harold exhibits were not receptacles for such
projections. This could be true or is could be false, so we have to take
a look: Is there a reason why eckists project parental stuff onto
Harold? Does Harold give them reasons to do so?
I think these questions are so self evident that they don't need
explaining, however, many eckists here might need it spelled out. Harold
thinks he knows what is best for his students and makes no qualms about
expressing it. Sounds like a parent, eh? Harold is authoritarian and can
not be questioned just like authoritarian parents. Harold presents
himself as omnipresent, which we think our parents are when very young
children, etc. You get the picture. Harold has lots of so called
negative qualities that students can use as projection receptacles. As I
said, there is a reason why people project their stuff on Harold. The
fact is, Harold cultivates this and exploits these projections on the
part of the students. This is what holds eckankar together.
The other thing that is important to realize is Harold is playing out
his childhood issues and projecting onto students his own issues. But
we'll save that for another day.
Another viewpoint about this is the water seeks its own level dynamic. A
person who is in a psychological state where they need to project their
parental stuff on others will find a group where this can occur. So
people like this will be drawn to eckankar. If a person wants to give up
their power, they will find a group that will take it. Despite all of
eckankar's talk of responsibility and choice, eckankar is about taking
people's power who want to give it up. Even the absolutized rhetoric
about responsibility is a means to ask people to give up their power to
Harold and eckankar. You see, the content doesn't matter, it is the
context and the underlying dynamic that cause such disempowering and
dominating transactions.
Anyway.... back to your friend: So when you friend realized his own
projections he experienced a bit freedom. He now saw that his
projections were responsible for the recurring feelings. This is great,
but incomplete. The step further would be to see how he created a life
based upon these unresolved parental issues. In other words, eckankar is
part of that creations. For him to realize his projections and to stay
in an environment that cultivates and receives such projections does not
make sense, or does not indicated a deep and lasting change. You see,
when you get to a point where you understand and see how you have
colluded with Harold or eckankar to disempower yourself, you no longer
need such a group.
Realizing one's projections and creations that result from such
projections and staying in the creations doesn't make sense. I would
suggest that your viewpoint that people stay in eckankar and realize it
was ALL them is yet another subtle layer of the disempowering
conditioning Harold teaches his students so that Harold doesn't have to
take responsibility for his part in perpetuating and creating the mess
called eckankar. That what your friend is calling freedom, might be a
different lower level of freedom but that your friend is still under the
influence of his own projections. How can I say that?
In my experience when you truly pull back your projections, your outer
reality changes effortlessly. You no longer need to be a part of a
religion that cultivates student's projections and you leave. It is a
natural consequence of the deep realization, not any great conscious
effort or anything.
In doing
> this, he is starting to recognize the passive controllers in himself and int
> he world around him, and now he feels that after some 25 years int he
> teaching he is actually beginning to understand what Paul was about.
This is absurd to elevate Paul's teaching when considering the points I
brought up.
Paul's teaching very much cultivate and augments a student's projecting
their parental issue, and very much about taking those projections and
using them to build an organization and temples. In your example you
talked about negative projections. But a more insidious and overpowering
form of projecting is to projection the positive qualities onto the
Harold.
Often people can see their negative projections, but the positive ones
are as powerful if not more powerful than the negative ones. Why?
Because we don't see them as projections. It is easier to control people
by dangling spiritual carrots in front of them than to smacking them
with sticks. This means that many many eckists project all their so
called positive qualities onto Harold. I would suggest owning these
positive projections is as difficult as owning the negative ones, if not
more.
And again, Harold takes people's light, cultivates these positive
projections in the students. How? Just look at all the crap he claims
about his high consciousness and how he is a direct link to god etc..
That's how!
>
> Nothing to do with the teaching, and everything to do with Accepting Self,
> seeing self, and being self. What is the upshot of it all? My friend is
> speaking up when he sees someone is lying to him, and politely pointing out
> things if he feels it is right to do so. This is now his service to the ECK,
> to be more honest every day.
Does he speak up about Paul and Harold lies in eckankar? If so, I bet he
doesn't last long. He can only speak about other students lie.
I believe staying in eckankar and helping it become less of a receptacle
for projections can be a healthy option but is not viable considering
the oppressive climate where Harold's rules with iron fist.
To reform a group by simply talking about the students projections and
lies without talking about Harold's projections and lies is simply a way
to blame students and elevate Harold as being approach. All your friend
is doing is selling his own limited realization that it was all his
projections.
I would say you friend is still imprisoned in his own projections and
the freedom you talk about is just another cell.
Lurk
P.S. Hey, I'm wondering Michael...is this one of those stories where
you're really talking about yourself and pretending like you are talking
about a friend? <g>
Drmarman
thoughtfulness.
I can see what he is getting at, but although I can easily see the point he is
making, and there is certainly truth to it, I have come to a very different
conclusion.
The issue here is that James is looking for a different kind of teaching than
Paul was after. Paul first began talking about the different types of spiritual
paths back in early 1965. I'm going to include this in my rewrite of my book,
Dialogue In The Age of Criticism, since I think it is an important point that
most ECKists have missed.
Paul points out that there are three different basic types of spiritual
teaching: The cosmic consciousness theory, the intellectual or mind theory and
the bilocation theory. Of course he would later change bi-location to Soul
Travel. But this points out what James is getting at here.
It is obviously the intellectual and mind theorists who want to find a system
of integration. That is exactly what Ken Wilber is after, and obviously
attracts James. I find such things interesting to read, but generally are not
what I really enjoy. Nor do they get me to the depth of truth that I've found
through Soul Travel.
So, I certainly agree with James that Paul was not an integrater, but once seen
through the point of Soul Travel that Paul was trying to get at, he was also
not writing about scattered and fragmented teachings picked from here or there
that don't fit together. His teaching of Soul Travel is not about a set of
theories or principles, but about a way of experiencing and living these
things. What holds it all together is not the written work, but the ways he
shifts consciousness to open up these spiritual truths of the ages. It is the
Soul Travel approach to revealing what these teachings really mean, that is the
basis of his teaching, and truly different from other teachers.
Although he tried to explain it many different ways, I think few ever caught
his point, and I will try to explain it better in my rewrite, because I think
it is indeed important if you want to understand his teaching.
Of course if you don't want to understand his teaching, then ignore my comments
above.
However, thanks anyway for posting James' comments.
Doug.
> JAMES DAVIS:
bluestar
Mr. Twitchell taught Soul travel. What is Soul travel? It is a yellow monkey
no one but one person has seen, hidden in a box behinda curtain. This box
is brought out to show those who don't 'understand' Mr. Twitchell. Of course
if you don't want to understand this teaching, then ignore my comments above.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
cher
make you another subject matter expert then! LOL......
arelurker
Drmarman wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting this, Jadoo. I must say I enjoy James' clear thinking and
> thoughtfulness.
>
> I can see what he is getting at, but although I can easily see the point he is
> making, and there is certainly truth to it, I have come to a very different
> conclusion.
>
> The issue here is that James is looking for a different kind of teaching than
> Paul was after. Paul first began talking about the different types of spiritual
> paths back in early 1965. I'm going to include this in my rewrite of my book,
> Dialogue In The Age of Criticism, since I think it is an important point that
> most ECKists have missed.
Most eckists have missed? The is aplogetic speak for "hey everybody, I
found an obscure reference where Paul said something, that I can blow
way out of proportion and use my revisionism skills that will allow me
to keep my world according to Paul in tact."
>
> Paul points out that there are three different basic types of spiritual
> teaching: The cosmic consciousness theory, the intellectual or mind theory and
> the bilocation theory. Of course he would later change bi-location to Soul
> Travel. But this points out what James is getting at here.
Doug, your idealistic notions about Paul are truly gallant, but it is
time to grow up. Paul said a lot of things that made sense in the early
days when he was making the transition of being a seeker to an
authority/teacher. But much of his innovative thinking was push aside
and canceled by his demons that took over and made eckankar a cult.
Proof is in the pudding and Paul made rotten pudding.
>
> It is obviously the intellectual and mind theorists who want to find a system
> of integration. That is exactly what Ken Wilber is after, and obviously
> attracts James. I find such things interesting to read, but generally are not
> what I really enjoy. Nor do they get me to the depth of truth that I've found
> through Soul Travel.
Whatever you found through Soul Travel is of the quality that makes you
come up with childish arguments about Paul and his transgressions. In
other words, what good is the truth you have found if your outer life is
partially spent perpetrating a con on top of a con?
>
> So, I certainly agree with James that Paul was not an integrater, but once seen
> through the point of Soul Travel that Paul was trying to get at, he was also
> not writing about scattered and fragmented teachings picked from here or there
> that don't fit together. His teaching of Soul Travel is not about a set of
> theories or principles, but about a way of experiencing and living these
> things. What holds it all together is not the written work, but the ways he
> shifts consciousness to open up these spiritual truths of the ages. It is the
> Soul Travel approach to revealing what these teachings really mean, that is the
> basis of his teaching, and truly different from other teachers.
>
> Although he tried to explain it many different ways, I think few ever caught
> his point, and I will try to explain it better in my rewrite, because I think
> it is indeed important if you want to understand his teaching.
Isn't it funny that a lot of what Doug says about Paul comes down to
DOUG IS THE ONLY ONE WHO TRULY CATCHES PAUL REAL POINT! <lol>
This is another from of Doug's deep denial which I pointed out
yesterday. Whenever I give an interpretation of Doug's words in his
story, he simply proclaims my words as misinterpreting and
misunderstanding without even showing me how.
So when someone criticize Paul's work that just aren't catching Paul's point.
When someone criticizes Doug's work they just aren't catching Doug's point.
Hmmmm. Methinks Doug is terminally caught up in cultic thinking.
Lurk
K Addleman
"Drmarman" <drma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040707144245...@mb-m02.aol.com...
I see in your view the attempt to, once again, frame a critic's perspective
within Twitchell's cosmology. It seems if a view is not supportive of
Eckankar, it is below the "Soul" level, or limited to the mental plane. As
you put it, James is working within Twitchell's "intellectual or mind
theory" and not the "Soul Travel" theory. As usual, there is the hint that
the criticism, as well as the critic, is in some way flawed, or not quite up
to Eckankar's level. But the desire to integrate various spiritual teachings
into one unified, holistic understanding is not necessarily limited to
non-transcendental states. It may be simply James' way of organizing the
various spiritual teachings he finds interesting around his "soul" vision.
God forbid that James would try to synchronize his intellect with his
"higher" non-intellectual experience.
Kent
arelurker
Ahhhh, someone else who understands Marman. <lol>
Lurk
K Addleman
"K Addleman" <kentad...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gjYGc.8030$R36....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I would add that, given your need to categorize every comment into the
mind/no-mind duality, is it possible you are working within the "mind
theory," as well? Is it only a coincidence that nearly every criticism of
Eckankar ends up, in any summary of your views, to be not "getting to the
depth of truth"? It seems to be an automatically programmed response. It is
apparent that the dogmatic axiom that Eckankar is working from a higher
plane than its peers is alive and well with you, Doug. .
M B
Wilber are master writers and true integrators, while Manley Palmer Hall and
Aldous Huxley & Edwaurd Shure are wonderful spiritual historians.
Not sure where to place other prolifit 'spiritual' writers, like Blavatsky,
Bailey, Powell, LUK and Steiner.
Hubbard was in place all his own. Lots of very interesting pearls in the
original Dianetics materials...
Michael Wallace
together the pieces that made the right sort of ladder to get people into
"Fly" mode.
As far as everything being stitched up and "right" according to the mind, I
personally consider that he did a pretty good job of that as well. Years ago
I had an experience... I was in a room that had no windows, and no door. It
was all white, and no way in or out... But when I looked up I saw there was
no ceiling... So I flew out.
Then I woke and realised something of what Paul was hinting at... There are
no answers to the social mindset and the beliefs people hold... There are
only agreements and disagreements... But there is no ceiling to the "voice"
of Soul... We can simply leave and move to a better place.
This is something that I learned from Paul which is very important for me
personally. For myself it is the corner stone of difference in the "Mind
Control", "Cosmic Consciousness" and "Soul Travel" theories.
Love
Michael
"Drmarman" <drma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040707144245...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Drmarman
>> KENT WROTE:
>> I see in your view the attempt to, once again, frame a critic's
>perspective
>> within Twitchell's cosmology. It seems if a view is not supportive of
>> Eckankar, it is below the "Soul" level, or limited to the mental plane. As
>> you put it, James is working within Twitchell's "intellectual or mind
>> theory" and not the "Soul Travel" theory. As usual, there is the hint that
>> the criticism, as well as the critic, is in some way flawed, or not quite
>up
>> to Eckankar's level. But the desire to integrate various spiritual
>teachings
>> into one unified, holistic understanding is not necessarily limited to
>> non-transcendental states. It may be simply James' way of organizing the
>> various spiritual teachings he finds interesting around his "soul" vision.
>> God forbid that James would try to synchronize his intellect with his
>> "higher" non-intellectual experience.
>>
>> Kent
DOUG RESPONDS:
First, Kent, you are seeing intentions that aren't there. Paul wrote the
article in May of 1965. There is no tone at all in his article that Soul Travel
is superior to the other two. He does say that both the mind theorists and
cosmic conscious folks have given the bilocation theorists a good drubbing, but
he actually presents them as three alternatives and seems to simply be
suggesting it is worth looking at bilocation as an option.
No mention at all the mind theorists somehow means it is below the Soul Plane
or that bilocation somehow is above the Soul Plane.
Not even a hint. So, if you caught a sense of that, it is perhaps a hold-over
from other discussions, but was not something I was feeling or intending in my
comment.
I also like to see if I can integrate the many spiritual teachings of the
world, and I think Paul's three categories shows that he did too. However, I
think it is clear that Paul didn't try too hard to fit everything together into
one system, because I believe when he wrote that article he felt that direct
experience and individuality was more important than the system.
Michael B. also seems to feel that making the teaching clear and getting rid of
confusion is absolutely important. But from the way that Paul broke it down
into these three approaches, I would say that this desire is best suited with
the mind theory approach, not the bilocation approach. The cosmic consciousness
approach, by the way, is the one that says all teachings are one.
But by saying the above, I only mean that MB might find himself happier
studying more in depth along the lines of the mind theorists. Same about James.
I've tried studying many of those teachings but never found it worked for me.
But they are obviously working for others, since they are very popular.
I think we should each choose what works for us, and we should also try not to
mix them up when they are really quite different.
>
>I would add that, given your need to categorize every comment into the
>mind/no-mind duality, is it possible you are working within the "mind
>theory," as well? Is it only a coincidence that nearly every criticism of
>Eckankar ends up, in any summary of your views, to be not "getting to the
>depth of truth"? It seems to be an automatically programmed response. It is
>apparent that the dogmatic axiom that Eckankar is working from a higher
>plane than its peers is alive and well with you, Doug.
>
>Kent
Well, I suppose we all borrow some from each of the three approaches, and I
suppose none of us are all one or the other. So, I'm sure you are right that
I'm using some mind theory in what I said.
Is there something wrong with that? It's not like tainted meat or anything, is
it? <G>
I'm not saying one is bad and one is good, or one is right and the others
wrong. I don't feel that way at all.
Frankly, I simply see these as approaches. And I wouldn't say that Paul's
approach is the best, because I don't think it will work for lots of people.
My only point is that we shouldn't try to say how bad Paul's teachings are from
the standpoint of integration or for "oneness" because those are qualities that
belong to different approaches.
See my point?
I thought it was an interesting point worthy of discussion here.
I thought some of your comments were interesting and caused me to think some
more about it, but all the assumptions about my intentions and so-called
dogmatic axioms couldn't have been further from the truth.
If you don't agree with the point I'm making, I enjoy hearing why. But I don't
see the reason why my intentions keep being brought into the matter, since we
each are responsible for our own intentions and we each have the right to
whatever intentions we might have.
Thanks.
Doug.
Drmarman
Which raises a question: Do "true integrators" like to work with each other to
further the integration?
Or do "true integrators" prefer to come up with their world view on their own?
Is integration like the approach that scientists take, sharing their own
experiments and theories, but knowing that the truth will come out over time?
Doug.
M B
> Which raises a question: Do "true integrators" like to work with each
other to
> further the integration?
**** Real ones often do, but not always...there is often much resistance to
improvement and integration. For example, PT...put down a stake based
partially on integration (and not as well) & many will fight to the death to
keep the half-assed parts of his dogma in tact in the name of who knows !
>
> Or do "true integrators" prefer to come up with their world view on their
own?
**** They do, but if their views make sense, then others will expand the
work & leave them behind if they decide to not change. This is often the
case and why the world is strewn with old time systems of all sorts. For
example, Klemps lack of insight and willingness to confront the PT stuff
honestly and thoroughly has led to the attacks on his dogma, not the KAL -
in fact just the opposite. The Ford & Lane systems are just the beginning.
Is integration like the approach that scientists take, sharing their own
experiments and theories, but knowing that the truth will come out over
time?
**** Integration is synthesis. Most scientists are more into their own
thing, often reductionist in nature...but the world of science create
integration over the long as part of natures drive towards survival and
homeostasis in evolution. In engineering and science, it is common to have
'post mortems' after each major project or project phase. The goal is to
find out what went wrong then clean up and move forward. Systems that refuse
to clean up their past garbage ( or dont have the know how) often go by the
wayside and aer replace by new and better ones..
There is an old expression that says that 'each aspect of research adds
another pebble to the rockpile of knowledge.' -n somethign liek that
Same with spiritual systems, like the Sciecne of Soul travel. Each of the 3
spiritual directors added bits of innovation to the system...
>
> Doug.
>
Al Radzik
Michael Wallace wrote:
> I have always seen Paul as a writer who flew above the details, and put
> together the pieces that made the right sort of ladder to get people into
> "Fly" mode.
As in a maggot laying bug, Mikey?
>
> As far as everything being stitched up and "right" according to the mind, I
> personally consider that he did a pretty good job of that as well. Years ago
> I had an experience... I was in a room that had no windows, and no door. It
> was all white, and no way in or out... But when I looked up I saw there was
> no ceiling... So I flew out.
Were you in solitary confinement? Never heard of a room describes quite
that way, mental midget?
>
> Then I woke and realised something of what Paul was hinting at... There are
> no answers to the social mindset and the beliefs people hold... There are
> only agreements and disagreements... But there is no ceiling to the "voice"
> of Soul... We can simply leave and move to a better place.
Time for some MAOI, Mikey. You are delusional
>
> This is something that I learned from Paul which is very important for me
> personally. For myself it is the corner stone of difference in the "Mind
> Control", "Cosmic Consciousness" and "Soul Travel" theories.
Yawn, what a bore. Same old story about how Reb came in and changed
Mikey into a man.
Bee
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:40EC08FE...@charter.net...
Funny you know Lurk! I get first hand what Michael and is in his life to do
with Eckankar ...
Basically he just deals with his bills for the most ... writes books ...
plays with his invention ... does a bit with the project to with music ...
takes Ben out .... goes out to dinner with "mad-hater" friends .... andf
makes sure he finds the time to see his mum .. plus does his contemplation
everyday. <G> Oh .. and the rest of the time I like to have a laugh / cry ..
tug or what ever with him<G>
For the most Lurk .. The days of following one's asse to see where one
comes up to scratch in on'es own mind is for thye most fizzled down to just
"doing" ... What the hel do you do with your life??
Just curious .... FWIW ... All the running around people do inside their
heads over a religion makes for no time for creativity or play in my books
.. I am an Eckist although I am just cruising in life .. To me it is the
only way. I don't care much for the chasing rainbows myself .. Just
thought I'd say it to you ....A.R.E is one thing to ponder and play in the
mind field ... although off-set is anothet kettle of fish. Maybe a Satsang
will be something Michael looks into down the track and I will be glad to
even go along with tha myself .... But I don't think the teaching was/is set
up for drainingthe brain .. It6 sems it is more like a tool for each
individual to choose to or not choose to have on hand in helping to unfold
more closely to the reality of soul.
Whatever .. just saying
Love
Bee
Bee
"Al Radzik" <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3f9d$40ede291$18e1a310$14...@allthenewsgroups.com...
Oh YOUR in love with him aren't you!! <G>
No one calls him Mickey unles their libido is reacting to him VBg> ...
LordMaster Turq
Doug, would you care to elaborate a bit on what Paul meant by each of these
three modes of spiritual endeavor? This would help myself, and perhaps
other ARE readers, better grasp your point that James Davis's conclusions
are attributable to his favored spiritual paradigm. Thanks much!
Michael Wallace
"Bee" <waf...@rubarb.com> wrote in message
news:40ef...@news1.veridas.net...
Is Alf STILL reading and responding to everything I write?
We must ask his wife to restrain him, this is getting a little sad for the
poor little puppy. He needs a home.
But Alf in Love with me? Scary scary thought....
Love
Michael
Bee
"Michael Wallace" <ph...@phurphy.com> wrote in message
news:40f0...@news1.veridas.net...
Michael .... <G> Any girl that I have heard call you Mikey has wanted
personal attention of you .... (smirk)
So .. you gotta let your imagination see where Alf fits in<g> Yes .. and
it IS scary ...
Love
Bee
Michael Wallace
There are some places my imagination just does not want to go, Bee...
<G>
Love and Hugs
michael
Bee
Well I won't push the issue any further (smirk) ...
Maybe I'll throw the dice and see what happens <G>
Love and BIGGER hugs to you
Bee
>
>
>